Re: 300 vs 10,000 bc

i've been curious about "10,000 B.C." just because i like to see those types of movies in theaters... but really, where did you come up w/ the comparison to "300"? (which i also saw in theaters, but not since...)

as for being a good movie to see on the big screen but completely forgettable otherwise (i.e. "beowulf" in 3D iMax), i'm expecting these 2 will rank the same.

Re: 300 vs 10,000 bc

P.S. the whole poll sucks (and that's NOT what she said) because a) "300" was in no way a special-effects breakthrough, and 2) you should wait until a movie gets released before you ask people's opinion.

Re: 300 vs 10,000 bc

Originally Posted by shakermaker113

how is it we manage to feed millions of dollars into a movie and still produce crap? seriously, what is wrong?

That, amigo, is not the real question. The REAL question is this: Why do people watch terrible movies in such large numbers? By this I am saying that 10,000 BC is already a financial success. If a movie makes a significant profit, you can be guaranteed that there will be follow-up... sequels, imitations, et cetera. It's just good business to make movies that make money.

The real question is why do people pay good money to see movies they know will suck? I mean, nobody had any illusions about 10,000 BC being good, and they went and paid $10 to see it anyway.

I could be my usual self and ascribe it to a more charitable impulse- say, that people go to bad movies as escapism, or because they see some value in them that I'm blind to- but in this instance I'm going to pull a Randy and declare that it's because when it comes to movies, people are stupid, stupid fucks. They're suckers for marketing, and they'll watch anything with special effects and "O Fortuna" or the theme from Requiem For A Dream in the trailer.

God, I fucking hate people when they're stupid. It's a pity there's nobody around for me to just lay savagely into right now.

Re: 300 vs 10,000 bc

ok, so luckily I saw 10,000bc for free, because otherwise there is no chance I would have seen it.......but now I feel guilty, and it's possible I did irreparable harm to my mind...not even all the weed we smoked prior helped make it worthwhile

Re: 300 vs 10,000 bc

Originally Posted by Cpt. Funkaho

That, amigo, is not the real question. The REAL question is this: Why do people watch terrible movies in such large numbers? By this I am saying that 10,000 BC is already a financial success. If a movie makes a significant profit, you can be guaranteed that there will be follow-up... sequels, imitations, et cetera. It's just good business to make movies that make money.

The real question is why do people pay good money to see movies they know will suck? I mean, nobody had any illusions about 10,000 BC being good, and they went and paid $10 to see it anyway.

I could be my usual self and ascribe it to a more charitable impulse- say, that people go to bad movies as escapism, or because they see some value in them that I'm blind to- but in this instance I'm going to pull a Randy and declare that it's because when it comes to movies, people are stupid, stupid fucks. They're suckers for marketing, and they'll watch anything with special effects and "O Fortuna" or the theme from Requiem For A Dream in the trailer.

God, I fucking hate people when they're stupid. It's a pity there's nobody around for me to just lay savagely into right now.

people generally have bad taste, or more accurately no specific tastes, and juste wait for mass marketing campaigns in the media to form their tastes for them